litchralee

Notwithstanding the possible typo in the title, I think the question is why USA employers would prefer to offer a pension over a 401k, or vice-versa.

For reference, a pension is also known as a defined benefit plan, since an individual has paid into the plan for the minimum amount will be entitled to some known amount of benefit, usually in the form of a fixed stipend for the remainder of their life, and sometimes also health insurance coverage. USA's Social Security system is also sometimes called the public pension, because it does in-fact pay a stipend in old age and requires a certain amount of payments into the fund during one's working years.

Whereas a 401k is uncreatively named after the tax code section which authorized its existence, initially being a deferred compensation mechanism -- aka a way to spread one's income over more time, to reduce the personal taxes owed in a given year -- and then grew into the tax-advantaged defined contribution plan that it is today. That is, it is a vessel for saving money, encouraged by tax advantages and by employer contributions, if any.

The superficial view is that 401k plans overtook pensions because companies wouldn't have to contribute much (or anything at all), shifting retirement costs entirely onto workers. But this is ahistorical since initial 401k plans offered extremely generous employer contribution rates, some approaching 15% matching. Of course, the reasoning then was that the tax savings for the company would exceed that, and so it was a way to increase compensation for top talent. In the 80s and 90s was when the 401k was only just taking hold as a fringe benefit, so you had to have a fairly cushy job to have access to a 401k plan.

Another popular viewpoint is that workers prefer 401k plans because it's more easily inspectable than a massive pension fund, and history has shown how pension funds can be mismanaged into non-existence. This is somewhat true, if US States' teacher pension funds are any indication, although Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan would be the counterpoint. Also, the 401k plan participants at Enron would have something to complain about, as most of the workers funds were invested in the company itself, delivering a double whammy: no job, and no retirement fund.

So to answer the question directly, it is my opinion that the explosion of 401k plans and participants in such plans -- to the point that some US states are enacting automatic 401k plans for workers whose employers don't offer one -- is due to 1) momentum, since more and more employers keep offering them, 2) but more importantly, because brokers and exchanges love managing them.

This is the crux: only employers can legally operate a 401k plan for their employees to participate in. But unless the employer is already a stock trading platform, they are usually ill-equiped to set up an integrated platform that allows workers to choose from a menu of investments which meet the guidelines from the US DOL, plus all other manner of regulatory requirements. Instead, even the largest employers will partner with a financial services company who has expertise on offering a 401k plan, such as Vanguard, Fidelity, Merrill Edge, etc.

Naturally, they'll take a cut on every trade or somehow get compensated, but because of the volume of 401k investments -- most people auto-invest every paycheck -- even small percentages add up quickly. And so, just like the explosion of retail investment where ordinary people could try their hand at day-trading, it's no surprise that brokerages would want to extend their hand to the high volume business of operating 401k plans.

Whereas, how would they make money off a pension fund? Pension funds are multi-billion dollar funds, so they can afford their own brokers to directly buy a whole company in one-shot, with no repeat business.

Almost. By virtue of being a smaller antenna, the 30 cm panel does not focus its energy as tightly as a larger (eg 60 cm) antenna. Likewise, a smaller antenna does not pick up (ie receive) as much energy as a larger antenna does. Thus, by using a 30 cm panel, less of the high energy from the opposite radio will reach the receiver, and that keeps the receiver from being damaged.

In RF engineering, there is a careful balance between output power, antenna size/shape, environmental conditions, and desired link quality. Whoever built the radio link originally did not apparently perform the necessary calculation. I'm not an RF engineer, but for spanning a mere 50 meters, this 20 cm antenna with built-in radio should be more than sufficient for a basic link.

Normally, increased RF power is helpful to overcome interference or noise. Just like how normally, an automobile or airplane will be easier to operate if it has a bigger engine with more power.

At some point, though, the extra RF or engine power is no longer beneficial but also isn't harmful. And if you go significantly beyond that, then you end up in a region where the extra power is downright harmful and is actively working against you.

Consider an automobile driving in a rainstorm. Having more power is bad, because the tires can lose grip more easily, leading to a crash. In an airplane that has gotten into a stall, applying power is the wrong solution and just aggravates the stall, which is not good.

Here, adding more RF power is just cooking the other receiver like it's a Thanksgiving turkey. The extra power is no longer helpful for making communications, and may be physically damaging the receiver.

Although copyright and patents (and trademarks) are lumped together as "intellectual property", there's almost nothing which is broadly applicable to them all, and they might as well be considered separately. The only things I can think of -- and I'm not a lawyer of any kind -- are that: 1) IP protection is mentioned vaguely in the US Constitution, and 2) they all behave as property, in that they can be traded/reassigned. That's it.

With that out of the way, it's important to keep in mind that patent rights are probably the strongest in the family of IP, since there's no equivalent "fair use" (US) or "fair dealing" (UK) allowance that copyright has. A patent is almost like owning an idea, whereas copyright is akin to owning a certain rendition plus a derivative right.

Disney has leaned on copyright to carve for themselves an exclusive market of Disney characters, while also occasionally renewing their older characters (aka derivatives), so that's why they lobby for longer copyright terms.

Whereas there isn't really a singular behemoth company whose bread-and-butter business is to churn out patents. Inventing stuff is hard, and so the lack of such a major player means a lack of lobbying to extend patent terms.

To be clear, there are companies who rely almost entirely on patent law for their existence, just like Disney relies on copyright law. But type foundries (companies that make fonts) are just plainly different than Disney. Typefaces (aka fonts) as a design can be granted patents, and then the font files can be granted copyright. But this is a special case, I think.

The point is: no one's really clamoring for longer parents, and most people would regard a longer exclusive term on "ideas" to be very problematic. Esp if it meant pharmaceutical companies could engage in even more price-gouging, for example.

The original tech installed a 60cm panel for a rf link which is no more than 50M.

In case anyone else has this minor confusion, this is a radio link between two buildings which are 50 meters apart. And a square, directional flat-panel antenna that is 60 centimeters on a side is grossly overkill for the short distance involved.

To be clear, the legs would support the topper when it's positioned over the tub, and also support the topper when it's beside the tub? If that's the case, do the legs really need to fold away? Would fixed legs be acceptable? Or is there a requirement that the legs be foldable to provide clearance over the edge of the tub?

If you hold a patent, then you have an exclusive right to that invention for a fixed period, which would be 20 years from the filing date in the USA. That would mean Ford could not claim the same or a derivative invention, at least not for the parts which overlap with your patent. So yes, you could sit on your patent and do nothing until it expires, with some caveats.

But as a practical matter, the necessary background research, the application itself, and the defense of a patent just to sit on it would be very expensive, with no apparent revenue stream to pay for it. I haven't looked up what sort of patent Ford obtained (or maybe they've merely started the application) but patents are very long and technical, requiring whole teams of lawyers to draft properly.

For their patent to be valid, they must not overlap with an existing claim, as well as being novel and non-obvious, among other requirements. They would only file a patent to: 1) protect themselves from competition in future, 2) expect that this patent can be monetized by directly implementing it, or licensing it out to others, or becoming a patent troll and extracting nuisance-value settlements, or 3) because they're already so deep in the Intellectual Property land-grab that they must continue to participate by obtaining outlandish patents. The latter is a form of "publish or perish" and allows them to appear like they're on the cutting edge of innovation.

A patent can become invalidated if it is not sufficiently defended. This means that if no one even attempts to infringe, then your patent would be fine. But if someone does, then you must file suit or negotiate a license with them, or else they can challenge the validity of your patent. If they win, you'll lose your exclusive rights and they can implement the invention after all. This is not cheap, and Ford has deep pockets.

I'll address your question in two parts: 1) is it redundant to store both the IP subnet and its subnet mask, and 2) why doesn't the router store only the bits necessary to make the routing decision.

Prior to the introduction of CIDR -- which came with the "slash" notation, like /8 for the 10.0.0.0 RFC1918 private IPv4 subnet range -- subnets would genuinely be any bit arrangement imaginable. The most sensible would be to have contiguous MSBit-justified subnet masks, such as 255.0.0.0. But the standard did not preclude using something unconventional like 255.0.0.1.

For those confused what a 255.0.0.1 subnet mask would do -- and to be clear, a lot of software might prove unable to handle this -- this is describing a subnet with 2^23 addresses, where the LSBit must match the IP subnet. So if your IP subnet was 10.0.0.0, then only even numbered addresses are part of that subnet. And if the IP subnet is 10.0.0.1, then that only covers odd numbered addresses.

Yes, that means two machines with addresses 10.69.3.3 and 10.69.3.4 aren't on the same subnet. This would not be allowed when using CIDR, as contiguous set bits are required with CIDR.

So in answer to the first question, CIDR imposed a stricter (and sensible) limit on valid IP subnet/mask combinations, so if CIDR cannot be assumed, then it would be required to store both of the IP subnet and the subnet mask, since mask bits might not be contiguous.

For all modern hardware in the last 15-20 years, CIDR subnets are basically assumed. So this is really a non-issue.

For the second question, the router does in-fact store only the necessary bits to match the routing table entry, at least for hardware appliances. Routers use what's known as a TCAM memory for routing tables, where the bitwise AND operation can be performed, but with a twist.

Suppose we're storing a route for 10.0.42.0/24. The subnet size indicates that the first 24 bits must match a prospective destination IP address. And the remaining 8 bits don't matter. TCAMs can store 1's and 0's, but also X's (aka "don't cares") which means those bits don't have to match. So in this case, the TCAM entry will mirror the route's first 24 bits, then populate the rest with X's. And this will precisely match the intended route.

As a practical matter then, the TCAM must still be as wide as the longest possible route, which is 32 bits for IPv4 and 128 bits for IPv6. Yes, I suppose some savings could be made if a CIDR-only TCAM could conserve the X bits, but this makes little difference in practice and it's generally easier to design the TCAM for max width anyway, even though non-CIDR isn't supported on most routing hardware anymore.

Good luck with your endeavors! Always keep in mind that when debugging a complex problem, try isolating individual components and testing them individually. This can be as easy as swapping a web application with the Python SimpleHTTPServer to validate firewall and reverse proxy configuration.

Thank you for that detailed description. I see two things which are of concern: the first is the IPv6 network unreachable. The second is the lost IPv4 connection, as opposed to a rejection.

So staring in order, the machine on the external network that you're running curl on, does it have a working IPv6 stack? As in, if you opened a web browser to https://test-ipv6.com/ , does it pass all or most tests? An immediate "network is unreachable" suggests that external machine doesn't have IPv6 connectivity, which doesn't help debug what's going on with the services.

Also, you said that all services that aren't on port 80 or 443 are working when viewed externally, but do you know if that was with IPv4 or IPv6? I use a browser extension called IPvFoo to display which protocol the page has loaded with, available for Chrome and Firefox. I would check that your services are working over IPv6 equally well as IPv4.

Now for the second issue. Since you said all services except those on port 80, 443 are reachable externally, that would mean the IP address -- v4 or v6, whichever one worked -- is reachable but specifically ports 80 and 443 did not.

On a local network, the norm (for properly administered networks) is for OS firewalls to REJECT unwanted traffic -- I'm using all-caps simply because that's what I learned from Linux IP tables. A REJECT means that the packet was discarded by the firewall, and then an ICMP notification is sent back to the original sender, indicating that the firewall didn't want it and the sender can stop waiting for a reply.

For WANs, though, the norm is for an external-facing firewall to DROP unwanted traffic. The distinction is that DROPping is silent, whereas REJECT sends the notification. For port forwarding to work, both the firewall on your router and the firewall on your server must permit ports 80 and 443 through. It is a very rare network that blocks outbound ICMP messages from a LAN device to the Internet.

With all that said, I'm led to believe that your router's firewall is not honoring your port-forward setting. Because if it did and your server's firewall discarded the packet, it probably would have been a REJECT, not a silent drop. But curl showed your connection timed out, which usually means no notifications was received.

This is merely circumstantial, since there are some OS's that will DROP even on the LAN, based on misguided and improper threat modeling. But you will want to focus on the router's firewall, as one thing routers often do is intercept ports 80 and 443 for the router's own web UI. Thus, you have to make sure there aren't such hidden rules that preempt the port-forwarding table.

I'm still trying to understand exactly what you do have working. You have other services exposed by port numbers, and they're accessible in the form .ducksns.org: with no problems there. And then you have Jellyfin, which you're able to access at home using https://jellyfin..duckdns.org without problems.

But the moment you try accessing that same URL from an external network, it doesn't work. Even if you use HTTP with no S, it still doesn't connect. Do I understand that correctly?

I know this is c/programmerhumor but I'll take a stab at the question. If I may broaden the question to include collectively the set of software engineers, programmers, and (from a mainframe era) operators -- but will still use "programmers" for brevity -- then we can find examples of all sorts of other roles being taken over by computers or subsumed as part of a different worker's job description. So it shouldn't really be surprising that the job of programmer would also be partially offloaded.

The classic example of computer-induced obsolescence is the job of typist, where a large organization would employ staff to operate typewriters to convert hand-written memos into typed documents. Helped by the availability of word processors -- no, not the software but a standalone appliance -- and then the personal computer, the expectation moved to where knowledge workers have to type their own documents.

If we look to some of the earliest analog computers, built to compute differential equations such as for weather and flow analysis, a small team of people would be needed to operate and interpret the results for the research staff. But nowadays, researchers are expected to crunch their own numbers, possibly aided by a statistics or data analyst expert, but they're still working in R or Python, as opposed to a dedicated person or team that sets up the analysis program.

In that sense, the job of setting up tasks to run on a computer -- that is, the old definition of "programming" the machine -- has moved to the users. But alleviating the burden on programmers isn't always going to be viewed as obsolescence. Otherwise, we'd say that tab-complete is making human-typing obsolete lol